Even if the land improvement association concluded a settlement contract with the plaintiffs not to impose the partnership fees, if it is not authorized by the competent authority on it, the settlement contract shall be invalid.

Even though land improvement cooperatives concluded a contract to exclude the land of the association members from the business area and not impose the association fees, if no authorization has been obtained from the competent authorities, the agreement shall be null and void.

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The Gangwon-do Land Improvement Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu283 delivered on October 8, 1968

The plaintiffs' respective appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' ground of appeal No. 1 is examined as follows.

The judgment of the court below can be seen as the purport of the agreement that the defendant union would exclude the plaintiffs' land from the business area and will not impose partnership fees after 1960. According to Article 5-2 of the Decree of the Joseon Repair and Aid Association, where the union intends to alter its jurisdiction at the time of the settlement agreement, it shall obtain authorization from the competent Minister. According to Article 70 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Improvement and Aid Association Act Article 61 of the same Decree of the same Act, the above cases shall be authorized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. According to Article 39 (1) 5 of the Decree of the above Decree of the Shipbuilding Repair and Aid Association, in order for the union to bear or waive new obligations or rights except for those prescribed in the budget, it shall obtain approval from the Do governor. Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act Article 28 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Improvement and Aid Association Act provides that the head of the Do association shall obtain approval from the Do governor in order to reduce or exempt partnership fees. Accordingly, the court's's opinion to the purport of the above agreement cannot be justified.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below, based on evidence, obtained some benefits from the project, such as the irrigation and drainage of the defendant association in the year 1964, and the degree of such benefits was not better than that of the other districts of the defendant association. Thus, in the determination of the trade association fee of this case, the defendant association recognized the fact that the amount of this case, which is an amount less than the amount imposed on the defendant association members of other districts, was set and imposed, was legitimate in the disposition of this case. The judgment of the court below is just in finding that the disposition of this case was legitimate, and the degree of profits of the plaintiffs, the project cost of the fourth district of the defendant association, which is the location of the land of the plaintiffs, and the total amount of the association fee imposed on the same district, did not review and determine the amount of profits of the plaintiffs, the amount of the project cost of the

Therefore, each appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu